Leading RNC Candidate’s Law Firm Supports Obamacare: Says It’s Constitutional

As we all know, Michael Steele may be out at the RNC.
Let the celebrations begin!

However, one of the top leading RNC candidates to replace him works for a lawfirm that not only supports 'obamacare', but believes it to be fully constitutional. Now, imagine this night-mare: This guy takes over for Steele, and shifts the entire political strategy of the party.

Not only will there be divisions, but those divisions will get quite loud and nasty, at a time when the entire party should be focused on finding the right candidate to run atop the ticket in 2012.

Link (h/t BigGovernment): Leading RNC Candidate’s Law Firm Supports Obamacare: Says It’s Constitutional
(snip)

Read the whole thing, with access to embedded source links, at the link above....

 

Greetings, Talismen...and welcome to the board. Love the avatar.

From the OP, it seems that you are expecting all of us on the right to have the same opinion of Obamacare...and that you believe the the 'answer' to same is in the courts.

Let me disagree...

1. Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, outlined his view, that there are several strands of conservatives, as follows:

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt.
This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.

In this view, not only would one expect Pro-Business Conservatives to favor Obamacares, but the Supreme Court would as well.


2. While I would subscribe to the views of the Tea Party conservatives, I believe that the job of overturning Obamacare lies with the Congress.

 

So which one will be a judge with this case?

 

A law firm actually claims Obama care is what? Constitutional? Not a very smart bunch of attorneys.

They might want to take a look at all the print before they make such a statement.

 

Let me get this straight, because this guy works at a law firm that has one opinion he is not qualified to have a different opinion. Am I getting that right?

 

"Let me get this straight, because this guy works at a law firm that has one opinion he is not qualified to have a different opinion. Am I getting that right?[/QUOTE]


*** No, that's not it at all. What it means is someone is about as smart as a stick. IF the full Bill was ever read word for word, which obviously it wasn't, it would be seen that the sum and total, is based ONLY upon who paid for Medicare benefits. The entire ball of wax is predicated on that one single question.

Medicare recipients paid for that benefit, every level of that so-called benefit, from Part A, to Part B and right on down the line, was and is paid for by Recipients and those who will become Recipients. Ain't none of it been a freebee, kiddo. And Medicare was paid for separate and apart from Social Security deductions in our pay. Look at your paystubs.

We Americans are way way past the point of "stupid" sneaking up on us in politics. We are fed up with "stupid" and sneaky.

Just because a guy is an attorney, or it's a "law firm", does not mean he or they has brains, nor does it mean he or they will set aside his or their personal bias for the benefit of any client. He and they can give all the opinions they want to give, but that sure doesn't mean those opinions are valid.

Such firms usually get their buns kicked royally in a court of law, by the way, and depend more on intimidation and gas bag opinions to fling their weight around and back people off.

 

The only thing interesting here is you have an article on a Breitbart site using a thinkprogress link as its reference.

 

Are you talking in English?

 

Great info there, and thanks for the welcome!

I am more of a "mutt" mix of a & b, with b winning out for most but not all social issues. I am no where near the so-called "social con", but respect that they have a perfect right to believe as they choose. I just don't think government should be the "nanny" in social issues.

As far as obamacare - I agree that the most powerful way to deal with the issue is via congress. However, I believe the 10th amendment is and will play a role in process, where states choose not to enforce the specific aspects of obamacare that are unconstitutional.

 

Has he stated his opinion? No.
I'm wondering why.

IMO...So should everyone who considers obamacare to be unconstitutional.